Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Room at the finish or windward/leeward?
0
Two boats in a fleet race (Hobie 17s) are finishing downwind. No other boats nearby. RC is to the left, pin is to the right. Boat A is on port tack and is just inside the lay line to finish by the pin. No danger of not making the finish line on current tack. Boat B is on starboard and has overlap when Boat A enters the zone, but Boat B does not have the line made (pointing outside the pin). As the two boats come together, Boat B gybes with more speed than Boat A and ends up right beside and windward of Boat A. There's a chance that Boat B could sneak ahead of Boat A at the finish. Boat A is leeward and pushes Boat B up (to the left) and hails "leeward, come up". Boat B hails, "you've got plenty of room". Question is, if both boats are finishing in the three boat zone but Boat A didn't need Boat B to maneuver to give room rights to get past the pin, can Boat A take Boat B up (left) to keep her off the line and then bear off (right) to shoot the line. Or are room rights in play at the pin and Boat A is required to sail proper course and cannot use leeward rights to push Boat B off the line?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
(B)lue on port, initially is required to keep clear of (Y)ellow on starboard (RRS 10)
Y, overlapped outside when the first of them reaches the zone is required to give B mark-room (RRS 18.2(b)), and if B while sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled does not keep clear of Y, B is exonerated by RRS 43.1(b).
@4, Y has gybed onto port, to windward of B and is required to keep clear of B (RRS 11), and continue to give B mark-room.
@5, B changes course to windward, giving Y room to keep clear, and Y keeps clear.
B did not become overlapped to leeward of Y from clear astern, so B has no proper course limitation under RRS 17 .
No rule broken.
Good consideration.
The test for RRS 18.4 is ... must gybe at a mark to sail her proper course ....
B is at the mark @4. At that point, to finish as soon as possible she need only bear away slightly, not gybe.
So the test is not met and RRS 18.4 does not apply.
Even if position @5 was relevant, within 1 boat length of the finishing line, I still think her proper course would just be to bear away , not to gybe.
I get your point
My counter is, I would gybe because I think it’s faster and is therefore the proper course.
Your argument is that the proper course is simply to bear way and because that does not involve a gybe therefore 18.4 does not apply. This gives the added benefit that you can luff and not bother to actually bear way and finish. Just does not seam fair to me.
I think there comes a point when blue is luffing to become parallel with the finish line, then it becomes indisputable that her proper course is to gybe and she must do so under 18.4
There must be cases about room to round in a seaman like manner etc that I have not looked up
And to the discussion about whether I should gybe, the wind angles would not have required a gybe by me (blue) at any point of the sequence to make the line. I could either just keep going to the line and possible get passed doing so because yellow came in with more speed or use my leeward advantage to keep him away from the line until I was close enough to bear away from him and “shoot” the line, still on port.
When a protest occurs based upon 2 boats’ differing opinion of what one boat’s proper course is at the time, it often comes down to what is reasonable (we don’t have the counter-factuals to test every possible course to see which one was the fastest).
Also, remember that when “proper course” is analyzed, the other boat referenced in the rule is removed (def: proper course says “.. in the absence of the other boat..”). In 18.4, the “other boat” is the outside boat, as 18.4 limits where the “inside” boat can sail.
OK … now scroll up to John’s drawing .. and remove Yellow (the outside boat) … only Blue remains on the drawing. As Yellow protesting Blue are you going to say that if you were Blue all alone … you would have gybed at the pin to finish?… with all that line ahead of you all by yourself?
Or would you have sailed on port gybe and turned into the line at the last moment (or simply continued with speed on your point of sail)?
When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a markto sail her proper course, until she gybes she shall sail no farther from the mark than needed to sail that course. Rule 18.4 does not apply at a gate mark.
So she does not need to gybe to sail her proper course at the mark. B is the leeward boat, and therefore has the right of way and no longer needs to stay in the mark room lane nor constricted to sailing to the mark. I do not think any rule was broken.
Once the boats leave the pin zone, 18 is off and Blue has no obligation to sail a proper course or below her proper course (no 17). I would submit that if, for tactical reasons, Blue then chose to continue to luff Yellow away from the finish so other boats could finish ahead of Yellow and improve Blue's regatta score, that would be permissible (see case 78).
If they get into the zone of the committee boat, Yellow would then be inside and Blue would owe Yellow mark-room. At that point Yellow could bear away or gybe to finish.
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/2359
Proper course.
Listen to the OP evidence
USA Appeal US20
Mark-room is not defined to allow an inside boat without right of way to sail to a mark in a tactically desirable manner.
Conversely, a boat entitled to mark-room that also has right of way is not constrained to a seamanlike rounding.
The finishing mark was not a rounding mark, but it was a mark at which rule 18 applied.
You needed mark room to relieve you of the requirement to keep clear of Y, approaching you on starboard tack.
Yes, it would have been different finishing on a beat to windward.
However, if Y was first into the zone who would be the "outside" boat? Y would be closer to the mark, so would seem to be the "inside" boat, although it would be unable to fetch the mark without gybing. If Y were the inside boat, then B must give it mark room as they are overlapped and allow Y to get to the mark in a seamanlike manner, whether Y had to gybe or not. B would not be able to luff up Y after it gybes because the state of affairs is determined at the entry into the zone and does not change thereafter. (18.2(c)(2) would require Y to not sail above its proper course if B were to become overlapped to the inside after in the zone, but that doesn't seem relevant to Eric's question.)
As described in the OP and shown in the diagram in the second post Y is the outside boat throughout. The inside/outside relationship does not depend on which boat reaches the zone first. it's a matter of simple geometry.
USA Appeal US97 (diagram below) shows a case where it is not possible to determine which boat is outside at the zone, but this is an exceptional case.
RRS 18.2(d) says
(d) Rules 18.2(b) and (c) cease to apply if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone.
In the OP scenario neither boat passes head to wind or leaves the zone.
Perhaps you were thinking about RRS 18.1 last sentence which says
Rule 18 no longer applies between boats when mark-room has been given.
In the diagram in post 2 I'd say mark-room has been given @5 when B is reaching away from the mark, and all she has to do is bear away to cross the finishing line.
B does not lose her entitlement to mark-room by sailing outside the direct corridor, what she might lose is her entitlement to exoneration if she breaks rule 10.
The question is, @4, what is the mark-room to which B is entitled?
Arguably, her proper course is no longer to sail close to the mark, because to do so she would need to sail dead down wind which would be slow, so she is not entitled to mark-room to sail to the mark.
She remains entitled to room to
So, I think B, if she bears away promptly @4 is still sailing within the mark-room she needs to pass the mark as necessary to sail the course, and thus, if she breaks rule 10 she is still exonerated by rule 43.1(b).
I'm not prepared to die in a ditch for that application of the rules and would be happy to hear some more discussion.
Note, we're talking Hobie 17s here, with closing speeds of something like 30kts.
There might be quite a bit of evidential difficulty about getting facts right to within 2 or 3 boat lengths.
So, B has two options like this, both of which look to me to be horrendously risky in a H17 at 15kts,
If B luffs up to keep clear of Y then, yes, Y can
On the other hand, if B gybes, then, I'm inclined to think that she's then again sailing within her mark-room, and Y will need to give B mark-room to gybe back and leave the mark on the required side.
This would all be very well on Optis or Lasers, but I'm really uncomfortable about the time, space and consequences for powered up multis.
Like this?
Closeness to the mark and gybing is irrelevant.
But Y isn't the inside boat, and is never going to be, at that end of the finishing line.
John, you say:
"As described in the OP and shown in the diagram in the second post Y is the outside boat throughout. The inside/outside relationship does not depend on which boat reaches the zone first. it's a matter of simple geometry."
I don't know what "geometry" is supposed to mean, where that statement comes from or where there is a definition of "inside" or "outside" boat. Maybe you could point that out. Logically "inside" in a reference to a mark rounding would seem to me to mean closer to the mark unless it is defined otherwise. Or is it not a reference to the mark? (In which case, what is it a reference to?) Where is it defined?
John you also say:
"As long as she remains in the 'corridor' she may sail in any unseamanlike way she wishes. No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way. Seamanlike is a standard used in Definition Room to define an amount of space."
I don't think that is correct to say the boat may sail in any unseamanlike way she wishes and to be entitled to "Room". The definition of "Room" does 2 things. It defines a space to which a boat is entitled and it imposes a condition that it is allowed that space while it is sailing in a particular way, a seamanlike way:
"Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to
comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while
manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way." (bold added by me)
If the boat is not manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way it is not entitled to any space at all by this definition. So it seems to me that unless the boat sails in a seamanlike way it is not entitled to any room. It is not an obligation for a boat. It is a condition in order to get the space provided by the definition of "Room". As a result, it is in fact fundamental to Rule 18.2 to sail in a seamanlike way to get "Mark Room". This is a main point I am arguing. Maybe whoever drafted this didn't intend that to be the case, but that's what it says.
John, you say:
"Perhaps you were thinking about RRS 18.1 last sentence which says
Rule 18 no longer applies between boats when mark-room has been given."
You were right. That's the reference I was making. It was in 18.2(d) of the previous version of the rules and was moved to 18.1, (which I think is a better place for it in fact.)
If Rule 18 no longer applies between the two boats then the basic right of way rules apply and Y is on starboard and B is on port and must keep clear as long as Y is on starboard. Rule 18 would no longer apply when B ceases to manoeuver in a seamanlike way, and to leave the corridor (or "space") required for its seamanlike rounding would be proof of the fact it was not manoeuvering in a seamanlike way. So, I don't see how B could continue blocking off Y and not run afoul of the right of way rules and have an argument to be exonerated.
I certainly agree with you, John, that such a situation is very dangerous and, with either of the two boats taking an aggressive view about their rights, a collision with the possibility of damage and injury might well result. Any doubt about what Rule 18 might mean should be clarified so that this sort of danger could be avoided.
'Inside' and 'outside' in the RRS are not italicised, thus are not defined in RRS Definitions. In accordance with RRS Introduction Terminology words and terms other than those defined in the RRS are used in the sense ordinarily understood in
Operationally, a boat that is overlapped between another boat and a mark is inside the other boat, which then, is outside.
I disagree with your line of argument.
Yes
You seem to be misperceiving how the entitlement to mark-room and exoneration operates.
I agree that she can't. See the diagrams in my previous post of Created: 23-Oct-02 03:34. B has to either luff up and keep clear of Y, or bear away radically to the mark.
For example, if you toss horseshoes at a spike, the closest one to the spike would be inside any other horseshoe and therefore would score. This is a normal meaning of the word "inside" if referring to a horseshoe spike. However the normal meaning of inside, which is that it is closer in distance to a point (or within a certain boundary), is not what the rules are after, although they do not say what it is that they are after. In fact, the opposite is true. I assume that Rule 18 intends that where there is an overlap, the boat closer to the mark, in distance, needs to give the boat further away from it room to round the mark even though the boat closer to the mark would need to sail an additional distance (or slow down) to allow them to do so. So really it seems to want to have every boat be entitled to round the mark in an orderly way when they are overlapped and any boat which should be allowed to round the mark closer (or earlier, and therefore also closer) than another boat is called the "inside" boat relative to the boat which needs to allow them the room to do so. Not because they are "inside" but because they should be allowed to be inside, or closer to the mark, than the other boat, for the rounding of the mark. The Rules do not recognize this and therefore are confusing to be read literally and would need a definition of "inside" and "outside" to clarify them. However, my guess is that no one has figured out how to define these terms without causing even more confusion. (I don't have a good idea yet.)
If two boats are overlapped, side by side, then to require one to brake or manoeuver around the other could cause more confusion, danger of collision and injury than requiring the right of way boat to allow the other boat to mark room for the rounding. This seems to me to be the policy behind Rule 18. To me it makes lots of sense.
However, in the example you drew, where the two boats are "overlapped" within the definition of the term, but not side by side, it is unclear to me why the boat which is further from the mark should be allowed mark room. It could easily avoid the other boat. This is why I started to think about what is the meaning of "inside" and "outside" boat. Of course, if additional boats were involved in the area around the mark then it might change things and make it more dangerous for the B boat to avoid Y. In the first case with just 2 boats "I'll know it when I see it" seems to me to lead to a different result than in the second case where multiple boats are in the zone. I find this unsatisfactory.
RRS Case 12, which is an authoritative interpretation, clearly demonstrates that IW, which is further from the mark than OL, is the inside boat.
Looking at rule 18, the terms inside and outside only exist when referenced to boats that are overlapped. If a boat is clear ahead, then she is neither inside, nor outside, just clear ahead.
That is true in some cases, as in position 1 of Case 12. However, there are cases where it is not true. See Case 75, where S is closer to the mark than P. P is required to give S mark-room.
Perhaps it might be easier for you to understand if you think of it this way. When boats are overlapped, at a mark to be left to port, the boat on the port side of the other is inside. At a mark to be left to starboard, the boat on the starboard side of the other is inside.
Murray